Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Climate Questions -- Is Eng-Tips Fit for Purpose? 22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guest102023

Guest102023

Materials
Feb 11, 2010
1,523
0
0
CA
Question: as stated in the header, and as a service to the Eng-tips community.

Let's examine the content, direction, moderation and decorum (or lack thereof) of recent climate related threads. I will kick this off but not participate. Knock yourselves out.
______________________________________________________________________________

All the worst characteristics of internet 'speech' and particularly 'social media' have appeared, and a general antagonistic tone has become the norm. Threads have all had the same pattern of devolving into conspiracy theories, personal attacks, petty politics, and general invective that should be beneath a professional engineer, and certainly do not meet the stated expectations of the Eng-Tips managers in the house rules. There has been no moderation, other than an occasional scream to 'stay on topic' (often when a member simply disagrees with a post). I'll state up front that I don't claim to be proud of every single thing I have posted. And I always forget that folks most in need of hearing sarcasm are those least likely to detect it.

Some of the posts IMO are informed by ignorance, naked economic self-interest, one-dimensional thinking, total lack of self-awareness, even conspiracy theories. The political and ideological skews correlate well with member nationality. Command of logical principles at a fundamental level is frequently lacking and whataboutery is rampant. The fallacies are too numerous to list here. The worst social media crime of all is that of accusing another of the thing one is clearly guilty of. Members who post factual, verifiable information have had all kinds of aspersions cast at them, including personal insults, up to and including comments about the member's mental health. Well being aquainted with such issues, and having become a keen student of HU factors in organizations, I am somewhat adept at identifying such issues in myself and others (and let's face it, we engineers are highly prone to one or two 'conditions'. If you need help identifying what those might be, I refer you to popular jokes and stereotypes). I have held myself back from offering sometimes needed diagnoses.

Some of the worst offenders (there are at least three) have profiles that say "I'm an Eng-Tips Forums Fellow and member of the Eng-Tips Forums Round Table, where management is advised on site operations and proposed programming enhancements." I have no words for that discovery, other than 'what the actual ****??!!' All of them are old enough to know better. (Even though the profiles are public I apologize for snooping; it feels creepy. Anyone else feel creepy about it?) Maybe I have the wrong impression, but I associate things like 'Fellow' and 'member of the Round Table' with mature, thoughtful behaviour.

Discuss, considering how you all could make this work.

...see you all après le déluge




"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
JoshPlum said:
Ah yes, the new way to suppress free speech.... Call it either "hate speech" or "disinformation"!
Click to expand...

Yep. A fact which is counter to the narrative? DISINFORMATION

1984 came true. Instead of “wrongspeak” we have “hate speech” and “disinformation”.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Unless you are providing information to others that they may process it for a solution. Your scope may be too narrow... [pipe]

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Though I don't know that TBE has any bias towards oil and gas.
Click to expand...

Biases are not necessarily obvious, since they may have been from indoctrination from innocuous sources. We were once lead to believe that plastics were long-lived and re-usable, until the plastics industry realized that this was suicidal to the industry -- why would someone buy a new thing if the old thing was was immortal? So, they began a push to indoctrinate the consumer into treating plastics as disposable items -- now we're faced with mounting piles of disposed plastics that are bad for the environment and possibly bad for us. So, the industry began indoctrinating us into recycling as a means of assuaging the environmental impacts, but it turns out that most plastics are actually not recyclable and have to burned, which adds to the climate warming problem. Note that Sprite is switching to a clear plastic bottle because it's now become obvious that colored plastic is even less recyclable than clear.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Paywall... I cannot access the artcle. There's no question that the fix is going to be real costly and it may not work... it may be too late.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was trying to avoid putting up a wall of text, but I can't figure out a way to link around the pay wall. The gist of it is that carbon capture is a waste of resources.

NYT said:
PAYWALLED TEXT

The technology called carbon capture and storage is aptly named. It is supposed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources and pump them deep underground. It was a big winner in the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress last week.
What the technology, known as C.C.S., also does is allow for the continued production of oil and natural gas at a time when the world should be ending its dependence on fossil fuels.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden said he will sign this week, does more to cut fossil fuel use and fight climate change than any previous legislation by expanding renewable energy, electric cars, heat pumps and more. But the law also contains a counterproductive waste of money, backed by the fossil fuel industry, to subsidize C.C.S.

Fifteen years ago, before the cost of renewable energy plummeted, carbon capture seemed like a good idea. We should know: When we launched a start-up 14 years ago — the first privately funded company to make use of the technology in the United States — the idea was that the technology could compete as a way to produce carbon-free electricity by capturing the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by power plants and burying them. But now it’s clear that we were wrong, and that every dollar invested in renewable energy — instead of C.C.S. power — will eliminate far more carbon emissions.

Even so, this technology has broad political support, including from Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, an ally of the coal industry, because it enables the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels while also preventing the resulting carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Industry campaigns such as “Clean Coal” have also promoted the technology as something that could ramp up quickly to bridge the gap to the deployment of large-scale renewable energy. But by promoting C.C.S., the fossil fuel industry is slowing the transition away from fossil fuels.
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, facilities using this technology will be eligible for generous tax credits provided they break ground by the end of 2032 — an extension of the current deadline of 2025. Those benefits come on top of $12 billion in government investments in C.C.S., as well as technology that would pull carbon dioxide directly from the air, which were included in the infrastructure bill signed by President Biden last fall.

C.C.S. is seen as a solution to the emissions problem for a range of industries, from fossil-fuel-fired electricity generating plants to industrial facilities that produce cement, steel, iron, chemicals and fertilizer.
Where C.C.S. has been most widely used in the United States and elsewhere, however, is in the production of oil and natural gas. Here’s how: Natural gas processing facilities separate carbon dioxide from methane to purify the methane for sale. These facilities then sometimes pipe the “captured” carbon dioxide to what are known as enhanced oil recovery projects, where the carbon dioxide is injected into oil fields to extract additional oil that would otherwise be trapped underground.
Of the 12 commercial C.C.S. projects in operation in 2021, more than 90 percent are engaged in enhance oil recovery, using carbon dioxide emitted from natural gas processing facilities or from fertilizer, hydrogen or ethanol plants, according to an industry report. That is why we consider these ventures oil or natural gas projects, or both, masquerading as climate change solutions.
The projects are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide now being sequestered underground in the United States. Four projects that do both enhanced oil recovery and natural gas processing account for two-thirds to three-quarters of all estimated carbon sequestered in the United States, with two plants storing the most. But the net effect is hardly climate friendly. This process produces more natural gas and oil, increases carbon dioxide emissions and transfers carbon dioxide that was naturally locked away underground in one place to another one elsewhere.
In an effort to capture and store carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel-burning power plants, the Department of Energy has allocated billions for failed C.C.S. demonstration projects. The bankruptcy of many of these hugely subsidized undertakings makes plain the failure of C.C.S. to reduce emissions economically.

The Kemper Power Project in Mississippi spent $7.5 billion on a coal C.C.S. plant before giving up on C.C.S. in 2017 and shifting to a gas-powered plant without C.C.S. The plant was partially demolished in October 2021, less than six weeks before President Biden signed the infrastructure bill with its billions of taxpayer money for C.C.S.: good money thrown after bad. The FutureGen project in Illinois started as a low-emission coal-fired power plant in 2003 with federal funds, but ultimately failed as a result of rising costs.

The Texas Clean Energy and Hydrogen Energy California C.C.S. projects were allocated over half a billion dollars collectively, then dissolved. The list goes on, with at least 15 projects burning billions of dollars of public money without sequestering any meaningful amount of carbon dioxide. Petro Nova, apparently the only recent commercial-scale power project to inject carbon dioxide underground in the United States (for enhanced oil recovery), shut down in 2020 despite hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits.

These projects failed because renewable electricity generation outcompetes C.C.S. Renewable power now is cheaper than coal-fired power without C.C.S. Add the cost of the energy required to couple C.C.S. with fossil fuel power and it becomes hopelessly uncompetitive. We can only guess how much more the full costs of C.C.S. would exceed renewable power because, after decades of promotion and many billions of dollars spent, we still have next to no real-world data about the costs of running, maintaining and monitoring large C.C.S. projects.

These C.C.S. projects are subsidized by Section 45Q of the federal tax code, which now offers companies a tax credit for each metric ton of carbon dioxide injected into the ground. Those enhanced oil recovery subsidies would rise under the new law, from $35 to $60 per ton. The legislation also significantly broadens the number of facilities eligible for tax credits. And those facilities will be able to claim the tax credit through a tax refund. The 45Q program is nominally a program to fight climate change. But since nearly all carbon dioxide injections subsidized by 45Q are for enhanced oil recovery, the 45Q program is actually an oil production subsidy.

The Internal Revenue Service does not provide information about who gets the credits. But we do know that it issued more than $1 billion of these credits as of 2020.
These subsidies create a perverse incentive, because for companies to qualify for the subsidies, carbon dioxide must be produced, then captured and buried. This incentive handicaps technologies that reduce carbon dioxide production in the first place, tilting the playing field against promising innovations that avoid fossil fuels in the steel, fertilizer and cement industries while locking in long-term oil and gas use.

Industry campaigns for C.C.S. also have shifted their decades-long disinformation fight: Instead of spreading doubt about climate science, the industry now spreads false confidence about how we can continue to burn fossil fuels while efficiently cutting emissions. For example, Exxon Mobil advertises that it has “cumulatively captured more carbon dioxide than any other company — 120 million metric tons.”
What Exxon Mobil doesn’t say is that this carbon dioxide was already sequestered underground before it “captured” it while producing natural gas and then injected it back into the ground to produce more oil. These advertising campaigns lend support to government programs to directly subsidize C.C.S.
Solving climate change requires resources; misappropriating these resources makes solving the problem harder. We have no time to waste. We need to stop subsidizing oil extraction and carbon dioxide production in the name of fighting climate change and stop burning billions in taxpayer money on white elephant projects. Clean power from carbon capture and sequestration died with the success of renewable energy; it’s time to bury this technology deep underground.
Click to expand...
.

I would be curious to see moltenmetal's thoughts on this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks, Tug... there will likely be a few 'false starts', and costly ones. There will also be a lot of snake oil come out of the woodwork. The world governments will have to work on this... it's not a matter for 'free enterprise'. We saw how well they worked together for Covid... this will likely be more of the same. [pipe]

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Greg... Manitoba Hydro had a coal plant in Brandon, Manitoba, which has been closed down that used pulverised coal that was supposedly low carbon footprint... it wasn't as good as it was supposed to be. We are in a good prosition for, really clean, hydro power here... except that Manitoba Hydro, with the Province's blessing, wants to continue flooding the Indigenous land owners.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dik, that article was quoting one of the premier researchers in carbon capture. They said did not say they had missteps. They said carbon capture needs to be defunct, it is not the present and will should not be the future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dik,
Yes, Canada is blessed with hydro power. But for it to be expanded, you have to flood some land, of which you have plenty. In order to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
so long as they are someone else's eggs ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As far as hydro power goes, those eggs belong to the country involved, Canada in your case. It is the same with all public infrastructure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks TugboatEng for reaffirming the reasons I don't participate in these discussions here.

My opinion in relation to the factual basis for the reality of the risk of anthropogenic climate change is the REASON for my VERY RECENT focus on energy and decarbonization issues in my private consultancy, after working for decades for my now former employer. It is the CAUSE of my choice of what to do for money, not the reason that I think AGW is real. But of course you simply will not read my article which explains, with references, why I hold the opinion that AGW risk is real, we're causing it, and it is worth trying to mitigate, because that would require both effort and an at least somewhat open mind on your part on this topic. It's easier for you to slag me off by disparaging me and claiming that my opinion is bought and paid for by some nebulous financial interest, than to contend with that opinion on the basis of the facts.

That is why I don't engage in these discussions here any more, folks.

Again, anyone who wishes to engage with me on this topic is encouraged to drift over to LinkedIn and respond, on topic, to the article in question. You don't have to agree with me, but you must bring fact to the discussion, not excuses of why it must not be true because someone profits from it etc. etc. Those impugning my reasons for holding the well supported, scientific position that AGW is a risk worth mitigating, which I communicate about as a result of my responsibility as a professional engineer to hold the public safety as paramount, are invited to direct their invective toward someone who cares about what you think about me personally.

(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TugboatEng: you said: " moltenmetal, you have a financial connection to AGW. You must understand why some may find it problematic that you are trying to control the information that people share about AGW."

THAT is your comment that I was replying to. You addressed it to me, specifically.

Glad you don't deny that AGW is real. Do you also accept that the risk is serious, that we're causing it, and the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels? If so, you've arrived at the starting point for meaningful, fact-based discussion about what to do about the risk of AGW. There is PLENTY of room for such debate and discussion. We can talk about which mitigations have merit and which don't, who should pay for them, how fast we should carry them out, and what priority they should have relative to solving other important problems for humankind.

Still debating those points? Don't accept those things as having a basis in fact? Then there is absolutely no point in having ANY discussion with you about what to do to mitigate the risk of AGW. It is just a pointless discussion, and worse still, one which risks spreading mis- or dis-information to the public about a very serious issue.

If this forum were worth anything on this topic, it would be MODERATED on that basis. But it isn't, and won't be, and so it isn't. And so I don't waste my time on that topic here. I go elsewhere, where people who take the issue seriously can have a real discussion about how to solve it.

As to your assertion that "carbon capture is the wrong way to go about combatting AGW", we actually 100% agree on that fact. The way to go about combatting AGW is to stop wasting precious, finite petroleum as a fuel- and to reduce, dramatically, how much natural gas we burn as a fuel, and to stop burning coal as soon as humanly possible. That's going to be difficult, expensive, will take decades going as fast as we possibly can even AFTER we all decide that it's what we must do, and it will require us to alter how we live in significant ways along the way. It is also absolutely necessary. And we won't even begin if we're instead wasting our time arguing over whether AGW risk is real. That's been settled for decades- there is no credible scientific debate on the three facts and the basic physics that lead inescapably to that conclusion. There are error bars on the risk, but they do not extend to zero or anything close to zero.

Time to stop whinging about it, denying it, bargaining with it or minimizing it. Time to get on with solving it. But you won't find meaningful discussions about arithmetic in a room where people are allowed to shout "2+2=5" over and over again.



(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is it really settled? I tried to bring up a newer theory called Equivalent Climate Change. Our left leaning forum members stayed the heck away from that one.

Our total power capacity in the world is 7.1 terawatts. That's about 1% of the energy contributed by solar irradiance. That's huge. 4°C is a 1.5% temperature increases so it seems like our power generation itself is a greater influence than the greenhouse effect.

These are important things to consider as they should be steering our course.

Instead, I get called pointless.

Meanwhile, the believers have moved on to climate justice and have forgotten about climate change.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tmoose
  • Locked
  • Question
Discrepancies in climate risk models raise concerns 1
Replies
3
Views
5
TugboatEng
TugboatEng
rb1957
  • Locked
  • Question
Climate science ... settled ? 1
2
Replies
23
Views
24
GregLocock
GregLocock
GregLocock
  • Locked
  • Question
Positive feedback in the global climate
Replies
1
Views
2
rb1957
rb1957
SnTMan
  • Locked
  • Question
How the Climate Change Science Sausage Gets Made 5
2
Replies
31
Views
32
SnTMan
SnTMan
cmoreride
  • Locked
  • Question
Climate change: 'Sand battery' could solve green energy's big problem 1
Replies
14
Views
15
JoshPlumSE
JoshPlumSE
Back
Top