# What Fossil Fuel Really Do To America?

23 replies to this topic

### #18 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:40 AM

Fossil fuels implies, that at one time, that the same carbon was not fixed, but was part of the earth's carbon cycle. The CO2 was sequestered by life, which then dies, decays to make fossil fuel. At one time all the fossil fuels, including what is still in the ground was part of the active carbon cycle of the earth. Life was still able to evolve and the earth was not destroyed.

Sequestering the original high concentrations of CO2, by life, changed the planet. If we had been around when the CO2 was really high; before any fossil fuels had formed, and we saw life sequestering the carbon, the liberals would be afraid of that. They would correlate extremely high CO2 with what is supposed to be normal, while not taking into account earth's evolution base on life.

Fossil fuels formed beginning about 300 million years ago accord to the DOE. The quote s from their web site.

​Below is CO2 and temperature data for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and Temperature, when the carbon cycle contain far more CO2 than today such as before any fossil fuels has formed. I expected much high temperatures based on the 100 year computer models. If we burnt all the fossil fuels in the earth global temperature will peak at 25C. This same temperature was  reached even with 250 million years of carbon sequestered and stored as fossil fuels. How is that possible using the current logic?

Methane, the peak of a Milankovitch cycle and complete loss of polar ice.

### #19 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:47 AM

So for all the environmentalists out there, of which I am one, I am simply stating that we are only causing Job Loss,... and not really reigning in Coal Pollution. China simply nullifies and doubles the pollution despite our efforts for shuttling Coal..

So for any poor family in West Virginia or Kentucky who got Laid Off because of environmental impact restrictions, those savings are quickly lost (on a Global scale) with China doing everything they can to generate more energy themselves..

There are about a million coal jobs in America right now.  There are 750,000 clean energy jobs in America right now.  That number is projected to grow to 13 million by 2020 - and these are jobs that cannot be taken by foreigners, since we currently lead the world in clean energy development.  Which industry does it make more sense to support?

And on the China issue:

==================================

China Cuts Coal Use for Second Year in a Row

The announcement yesterday that China decreased its coal consumption for the second year in a row raises hope that the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter might peak its emissions years earlier than it promised ahead of the Paris climate talks, experts said yesterday.

Year-on-year decreases in consumption in 2014 and 2015 show China on a trajectory to meet its pledge to cap emissions by 2030—a promise that helped make a global climate deal possible in the French capital last year.

“It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue, although it is very much in line with the government’s overall goals to peak its CO2 emissions, to transition from heavy industry to services and other low-carbon industries and to fight air pollution,” said Barbara Finamore, China program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The nation’s coal use fell 3.7 percent last year compared with 2014, when it dropped 2.9 percent from its peak in 2013, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

The drop stems from an economic slowdown and from a reordering of the Chinese economy away from the heavy industry that helped it industrialize. Last year, the service industry accounted for 50 percent of gross domestic product for the first time this century. And while a share of that energy- and carbon-intensive production will likely relocate abroad, much of it reflects a drop in domestic demand related to China’s infrastructure needs having been met, said Finamore.

She said the decrease is also a testament to China’s effort of phasing in clean energy policies in earnest three years ago.

“2013 is the year when China really declared war on pollution,” she said. The government established a pollution control plan in urban areas that year, introduced carbon-trading pilot projects and mandated reductions in coal use.

=======================

### #20 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:50 AM

A few years ago my Washington DC area neighborhood was plagued by multi-day electrical outages. During one cold-weather one, I was too timid to try rigging a 24 volts power supply to my NG forced air heater, so while we had hot water, so my wife, pets, and I spent our time huddled around the fireplace like 19th century pioneers.

We were seriously considering getting an expensive full-house NG-powered electric generator that would automatically turn on during an electric outage, but, under pressure from government, our local power company fixed up its aged, fragile system, so we’ve now not getting more than a short outage.

As a suggestion, you could get a cheap transfer switch for your important loads (about $250 from Home Depot) and a cheap generator (also about$250.)  That would give you power for up to six circuits - things like heaters, fans, lights and gas stoves.

### #21 Essay

Essay

Explaining

• Members
• 811 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 03:09 AM

Fossil fuels implies, that at one time, that the same carbon was not fixed, but was part of the earth's carbon cycle. The CO2 was sequestered by life, which then dies, decays to make fossil fuel. At one time all the fossil fuels, including what is still in the ground was part of the active carbon cycle of the earth. Life was still able to evolve and the earth was not destroyed.

Sequestering the original high concentrations of CO2, by life, changed the planet. If we had been around when the CO2 was really high; before any fossil fuels had formed, and we saw life sequestering the carbon, the liberals would be afraid of that. They would correlate extremely high CO2 with what is supposed to be normal, while not taking into account earth's evolution base on life.

Fossil fuels formed beginning about 300 million years ago accord to the DOE. The quote s from their web site.

​Below is CO2 and temperature data for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and Temperature, when the carbon cycle contain far more CO2 than today such as before any fossil fuels has formed. I expected much high temperatures based on the 100 year computer models. If we burnt all the fossil fuels in the earth global temperature will peak at 25C. This same temperature was  reached even with 250 million years of carbon sequestered and stored as fossil fuels. How is that possible using the current logic? I also don't understand how CO2 went down from 175 million year ago until 100,000 year ago yet the temperature went up to the same levels before fossil fuels?

If you mean the GeoCrapt website, it is a horrible place to seek any understanding about climate, unless they've changed lots.  The last time I checked, it was obvious that they post lots of valid information, but that they also draw many crazy conclusions based on personal ideologies.

If your ideas about what the "current logic" is, come from that 'GeoC' website, then that would explain why nothing seems to make sense to you.

~

Edited by Essay, 14 January 2017 - 03:30 AM.

• JMJones0424 likes this

### #22 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 04:47 AM

Fossil fuels implies, that at one time, that the same carbon was not fixed, but was part of the earth's carbon cycle. The CO2 was sequestered by life, which then dies, decays to make fossil fuel. At one time all the fossil fuels, including what is still in the ground was part of the active carbon cycle of the earth. Life was still able to evolve and the earth was not destroyed.

Congratulations, you seem to understand that there is a carbon cycle.  However, you fail utterly to understand that rate of change is important to humans and other species living and evolving today.  No one claims that AGW will prevent life from evolving or destroy the Earth.  What is clear is that the recent rapid increase of atmospheric CO2 levels is unprecedented.  Your straw man misses the point entirely.  At one time, the atmosphere was dominated by methane and devoid of oxygen.  I think we can agree that this is not a preferable state for humanity.  In much the same way, while CO2 levels have been dramatically different in the distant past, this is irrelevant to the argument that increased CO2 levels is detrimental now.

Edited by JMJones0424, 14 January 2017 - 04:52 AM.

All I know is that I know nothing.

• Members
• 1172 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 11:35 AM

I personally prefer hydro, nuclear, and NG in that order.  Around here I think we produce more hydro than we use, but we have the nukelear power plant 30 miles to the west to make up the difference (about a mile or two north of my brother-in-law).