Reducing green house gases

Originally posted by @humy
No. What has it got to do with my assertions?

You still haven't told me what your solution is;
If we don't make world energy production either mostly nuclear nor mostly renewables, how do you propose we go carbon neutral? Your maths don't add up.

You mean your assertions about completely arbitrary percentages of where our energy comes from?

The maths don't add up because you are literally making things up and saying I said them.

Originally posted by @humy
[b]Let say it hypothetically is 'one coal plant'; so what? Exactly what does that tell us?
... the need to keep it simple for the sake of argument.

There's no need for hypotheticals. How many turbines are there? How much energy do they produce relative to a coal power plant?

We're trying to get off fossil fuels right? How much closer are we because of the wind power in your area?

"the need to keep it simple for the sake of argument" has been made more complicated by your use of completely arbitrary percentages. Use real numbers.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Suggestion 1. Use less electricity.
Suggestion 2. Ride your bike more.

Actually I would argue this is kind of working. Mostly due to energy-efficient lightbulbs, but clearly here in the US electricity use has plateaued/decreased and, at least in cities, bike commuting is way up.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Use real numbers.

1/2 is a real number

Originally posted by @humy
1/2 is a real number

You already said it's completely arbitrary.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You already said it's completely arbitrary.

and required for the sake of argument.
Mostly means more than 1/2. So I'm not allowed to use the word 'mostly'? If I am allowed to say 'mostly', that means I am allowed to say 1/2.
You still haven't said your solution to the problem. How can the world realistically go 100% carbon-neutral without also going mostly renewables? Still waiting.

Originally posted by @humy
and required for the sake of argument.
Mostly means more than 1/2. So I'm not allowed to use the word 'mostly'?
You still haven't said your solution to the problem. How can the world realistically go 100% carbon-neutral without also going mostly renewables? Still waiting.

Reread the OP. That isn't the question.... not even close. I answered the actual question, but I have no idea what problem you're even trying to solve with your 1/2 argument. Do you?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Reread the OP. That isn't the question.... not even close. I answered the actual question,

which question? You haven't answered my one which I have repeated and said in many different ways.

but I have no idea what problem you're even trying to solve with your 1/2 argument.

its not an 'argument' but a QUESTION. Why am I not allowed to say 1/2 ? And I didn't even say 1/2 the last time I asked.
Here it is again but with no percentages or numbers mentioned for you to complain about;

How can the world realistically go carbon-neutral without also going mostly renewables?

Originally posted by @humy
which question? You haven't answered my one which I have repeated and said in many different ways.

but I have no idea what problem you're even trying to solve with your 1/2 argument.

its not an 'argument' but a QUESTION. Why am I not allowed to say 1/2 ? And I didn't even say 1/2 the last time I asked.
Here it is again but with no pe ...[text shortened]... bout;

How can the world realistically go carbon-neutral without also going mostly renewables?

You said you brought it up "for sake of argument". What argument?

My solution was to the OP, which I've restated many times. For some reason you have not acknowledged this is a legitimate answer to the OP. I guess I didn't realize the "solution" that you kept saying that i hadn't provided was in reference to a question you hadn't asked yet. My bad.

I don't know the answer to your question, but it is different from what we were discussing. France is 75% nuclear (this is a real number!). Do you have an answer? Was it a rhetorical question?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Actually I would argue this is kind of working. Mostly due to energy-efficient lightbulbs, but clearly here in the US electricity use has plateaued/decreased and, at least in cities, bike commuting is way up.

According to one study, light pollution is getting worse.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42059551

Maybe we're consuming less electricity doing it, but light pollution is still not a good thing and is just one more indicator of mankind's willful blindness to the effects of his own technology.

There will have to be comprehensive changes at many levels to reduce mankind's footprint on the planet. Using less electricity and riding bikes would be a good start and are things everyone can understand and implement by and for himself, without waiting for international treaties to be ratified, implemented, and enforced.

Riding a bike more often, rather than taking a car or public transport, seems trivial, but could make a real difference, if practised often and by many people. It has lot's of beneficial knock-on effects, including reducing pollutants, improving the rider's health and thereby reducing medical expenses, less wear-&-tear on road surfaces, etc. China used to be a nation of cyclists; but now they seem hell-bent on going down the road to full-auto-mobilization, with all of its attendant ills.

Originally posted by @humy
unfortunately we need to do more than that to go carbon-neutral so 1 and 2 are only part of the solution.

Yes, I agree, more would need to be done, but it would be a start. See previous post.

Originally posted by @humy
what about CO2? Problem not solved. Consequences still unacceptable.

He was talking about poisonous gases. CO2 is not poisonous. Learn how to read.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I'm not waiting for anything, are you?

There are plenty of products that are needlessly inefficient that can be made much more efficient. This could be done now and it makes sense, but even the leftists in government have no will to do so. Why are they sitting back and letting all this electricity go to waste?

http://www.mitsubishicomfort.com/articles/energy-efficiency/not-in-use-but-draining-energy-avoid-the-power-draw-of-vampire-products

My point is that despite all the talk and panic driven rhetoric nobody really wants to do anything about it even if it can be done now with little downside for any political party. Politicians are not interested in solving the problem even if they claim to be concerned. The only goal they really have is a tax. Since cutting electricity consumption can be done now without any cost that would not pay for itself in the long term it is clear that true solutions are a very low priority to politicians regardless of political party.

Summary: You have been duped.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Obviously I said in my first post on this thread and I've already agreed several times that rooftop solar is great and should be encouraged and promoted. I don't know why you keep saying this as if it's something we disagree about. It's just clearly not enough.

Look up how many wind turbines are needed to replace a single coal power plant (hint: it's a ...[text shortened]... investing in lots of nuclear now, as a proven, safe, reliable solution to reduce GHG emissions.

Nuclear power plants will not curb the other GHG emissions by very much.

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"CH4 is mainly generated by agricultural activities, the production of coal and gas, as well as waste treatment and disposal. N2O is mainly emitted by agricultural soil activities and chemical production.

In the EU, 60% of the CH4 and N2O emissions are emitted by the top six emitting countries -- Germany, UK, France, Poland, Italy and Spain.

The upward trend in CH4 and N2O emissions is also visible in the US, China, Japan and India which all recorded increasing GHG emissions."


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171020105341.htm

Originally posted by @metal-brain
He was talking about poisonous gases. CO2 is not poisonous. Learn how to read.

Try breathing CO2 and see what heppens, just like breathing N2 or Ar2, not poisonous either.