Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Glitch said:

It has absolutely nothing to do with quantum absorption. To be a greenhouse gas it must not only absorb infrared radiation, it must also retain that heat even if it is just very briefly. Any wavelength longer than 780 nm and shorter than 1 mm is considered infrared. Only if the gas absorbs light in that range can be be construed to be a greenhouse gas. If the gas cannot or does not absorb IR radiation, then it is not a greenhouse gas and is considered to be transparent.

Click to expand...

Sorry the calculation of the greenhouse effect, ~33C is based on Earth's atmosphere being completely transparent,
or without any atmosphere at all. All gases have some sort of absorption spectrum, and what is absorbed, Excites the energy state of the
atom until it ether collides with another atom or molecule, or spontaneously decays and emits photons.
The stated temperature of Earth without any greenhouse effect is stated to be about -18 C about the same average temperature
of the moon with almost no atmosphere. The main components of the atmosphere Nitrogen and Oxygen
have most of their absorption bands in the short wavelength spectrum (Visible light and shorter), but do have some absorption
bands in the near infrared.
Near-infrared absorption spectroscopy of oxygen and nitrogen gas mixtures

These new high-resolution measurements, on three mixtures of 21%, 50%, and 75% oxygen in nitrogen have allowed the investigation of the pressure and temperature dependencies of the continuum absorptions at 1.06 and 1.27 μm. The preliminary results of this investigation are reported here.

Click to expand...

If for example nitrogen absorbs green photons coming from the sun, that energy must ether be radiated off as photons, or passed to other atoms
or molecules, just like what happens to CO2, except there is a lot more nitrogen, and sunlight is not in short supply.
Because the data is showing that CO2 is not doing what the alarmist claim, we have to consider other reasons why Earth
is warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.

Glitch said:

There are two issues with hydrogen as a fuel source. First, it is extremely expensive to produce in large quantities. Second, it is highly explosive. Otherwise, hydrogen would be an excellent choice. Liquid hydrogen has more than twice the energy density of gasoline. Unfortunately, to keep hydrogen in a liquid state requires a temperature of -434.74°F (absolute zero = -459.67°F) and an atmospheric pressure of at least 0.0695 atmospheres (1 atmosphere = sea level).

Click to expand...

Granted, however those issues can be worked out. Gasoline is also highly explosive. My local Walmart distribution center has at least 60 hydrogen powered vehicles operating indoors

LetsGoBrandon said:

Probably if we do not waste too much time and investment on impractical battery only run EVs

Toyota may lead the way. American automobile manufacturers are too much in the pockets of politicians.

Click to expand...

What I see is that it is difficult to contain hydrogen, but we have well developed distribution and handling
capabilities for liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Consider that the Mirai gets a 360 mile range from carrying 5.6 kg of hydrogen, about as much hydrogen that is contained in
6 gallons of gasoline.

longview said:

What I see is that it is difficult to contain hydrogen, but we have well developed distribution and handling
capabilities for liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Consider that the Mirai gets a 360 mile range from carrying 5.6 kg of hydrogen, about as much hydrogen that is contained in
6 gallons of gasoline.

Click to expand...

Could be worked out,

longview said:

Sorry the calculation of the greenhouse effect, ~33C is based on Earth's atmosphere being completely transparent,
or without any atmosphere at all. All gases have some sort of absorption spectrum, and what is absorbed, Excites the energy state of the
atom until it ether collides with another atom or molecule, or spontaneously decays and emits photons.
The stated temperature of Earth without any greenhouse effect is stated to be about -18 C about the same average temperature
of the moon with almost no atmosphere. The main components of the atmosphere Nitrogen and Oxygen
have most of their absorption bands in the short wavelength spectrum (Visible light and shorter), but do have some absorption
bands in the near infrared.
Near-infrared absorption spectroscopy of oxygen and nitrogen gas mixtures

If for example nitrogen absorbs green photons coming from the sun, that energy must ether be radiated off as photons, or passed to other atoms
or molecules, just like what happens to CO2, except there is a lot more nitrogen, and sunlight is not in short supply.
Because the data is showing that CO2 is not doing what the alarmist claim, we have to consider other reasons why Earth
is warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.

Click to expand...

The calculation of the greenhouse effect is only an estimate, a guess. Since Earth is not a perfect black-body you cannot use the temperature results provided by using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Once again, not all gases absorb IR and it is that spectrum specifically that determines whether or not it is a greenhouse gas. Nitrogen and oxygen does not, and cannot, absorb IR. Both gases absorb the exact opposite end of the spectrum from most carbon-based gases, in the UV range. Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to IR and neither gas retains heat.

LetsGoBrandon said:

Granted, however those issues can be worked out. Gasoline is also highly explosive. My local Walmart distribution center has at least 60 hydrogen powered vehicles operating indoors

Click to expand...

Gasoline is not nearly as volatile as hydrogen. When was the last time you heard of a gasoline station exploding?


Furthermore, there is so much hydrogen under pressure that we are talking about taking out half a city block if a hydrogen-powered sedan were to explode. We are not talking about a small explosion here.



Then there is the cost. Hydrogen can be easily created through electrolysis using a 9-volt battery and a little water. However, to manufacture large quantities of hydrogen you need to use a great deal of electricity. We are talking power-plant levels of electricity. Something you cannot produce using either wind or solar. Hydroelectric may produce enough power, but you need power on that level to make a sufficient quantity of hydrogen to be usable.

In the end you end up with liquid hydrogen that is more than double the energy density of gasoline, but at a cost that is 50 times more expensive than gasoline. If Walmart is actually using hydrogen vehicles, then they are being massively subsidized for the fuel, because they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise.

Glitch said:

The calculation of the greenhouse effect is only an estimate, a guess. Since Earth is not a perfect black-body you cannot use the temperature results provided by using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Once again, not all gases absorb IR and it is that spectrum specifically that determines whether or not it is a greenhouse gas. Nitrogen and oxygen does not, and cannot, absorb IR. Both gases absorb the exact opposite end of the spectrum from most carbon-based gases, in the UV range. Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to IR and neither gas retains heat.

Click to expand...

IR is not the only radiation involved, and oxygen and nitrogen both have absorption bands in the IR. I would think that those would be saturated during the day, and to high a frequency at night though! The daytime absorption would be the green and yellow bands.

longview said:

IR is not the only radiation involved, and oxygen and nitrogen both have absorption bands in the IR. I would think that those would be saturated during the day, and to high a frequency at night though! The daytime absorption would be the green and yellow bands.

Click to expand...

IR is the only radiation involved when determining a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter what radiation is being absorbed, if it is not between 780 nm and 1 mm, then it is not a greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb IR. Oxygen absorbs radiation less than 300 nm, which is outside of the visual range. It is what makes ozone (O3) such an effective blocker of UV radiation.

Nitrogen is a bit higher on the spectrum absorbing radiation less than 580 nm. Which gives it a green to blue appearance in the visual range before passing out of visual range into the UV range. It is why the Aurora Borealis appears to be green when bombarded by charged particles. It is the result of excited nitrogen.

Glitch said:

IR is the only radiation involved when determining a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter what radiation is being absorbed, if it is not between 780 nm and 1 mm, then it is not a greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb IR. Oxygen absorbs radiation less than 300 nm, which is outside of the visual range. It is what makes ozone (O3) such an effective blocker of UV radiation.

View attachment 67505083
Oxygen​

Nitrogen is a bit higher on the spectrum absorbing radiation less than 580 nm. Which gives it a green to blue appearance in the visual range before passing out of visual range into the UV range. It is why the Aurora Borealis appears to be green when bombarded by charged particles. It is the result of excited nitrogen.

View attachment 67505085
Nitrogen​

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that our planet is warmer than one without an atmosphere, not just because of the presents of greenhouse gases,
but the presents of any gases at the current pressures. Sunlight has wavelengths that are absorbed by both nitrogen and oxygen.
Also both nitrogen and oxygen have near IR absorption bands.
Near-infrared absorption spectroscopy of oxygen and nitrogen gas mixtures
If we look at the statements related to earth being warmer than a black body, they compare an earth where the atmosphere
is completely transparent, not just to infrared wavelengths but all wavelengths.

longview said:

The last 8 cycles of glacial periods, validate that the CO2 level is a RESULT of the temperature change.
There is no evidence from the ice core records that would suggests that a change in the CO2 level would cause the temperature to change.

Click to expand...

Ice core data is part of the overwhelming evidence that the present warning is caused by human emissions of CO2. From my previous source.

“Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3”

LetsGoBrandon said:

Doubtful especcially if the climate change cult continues to stupidly push EVs.

Click to expand...

Electric vehicles can be used for energy storage thereby helping to speed up the transition towards renewable energy.


Electric car sales are now also increasing in many countries around the world.

“Globally, around 1-in-7 new cars sold was electric in 2022 (the preliminary estimate for 2023 is around 1-in-5). In Norway, the share was well over 4-in-5, and in China, it was around 1-in-3.”

Bergslagstroll said:

Ice core data is part of the overwhelming evidence that the present warning is caused by human emissions of CO2. From my previous source.

“Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3”

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

science.nasa.gov

Click to expand...

You are in error! The ice core records all show the temperature LEADS the increase in the CO2 level.
At best the records show the lag of CO2 past the temperature change is undetectable.
None of the records show the CO2 change driving the temperature increase.
Antarctic temperature and CO2: near-synchrony yet variable phasing during the last deglaciation

Antarctic temperature most likely led CO2 by several centuries (by 570 years, within a range of 127 to 751 years, 68 %probability, at the T1 onset; and by 532 years, within a range of 337 to 629years, 68 % probability, at the deglaciation end). At 14.4 ka, the onsetof the Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR) period, our results do not show a clearlead or lag (Antarctic temperature leads by 50 years, within a range of−137 to 376 years, 68 % probability). The same is true at the end of the ACR(CO2 leads by 65 years, within a range of 211 to 117 years, 68 %probability).

Click to expand...

This means your statement is in error, the ice core data do not show an increase in the CO2 level can cause a temperature increase,
but the opposite, that a temperature increase can cause a CO2 level increase.

Bergslagstroll said:

Electric vehicles can be used for energy storage thereby helping to speed up the transition towards renewable energy.

Click to expand...

Outside of urban areas, they are higly impractical and will never catch on.

Bergslagstroll said:

Electric car sales are now also increasing in many countries around the world.

Click to expand...

The increase here in the US started losing steam as soon as the buyers were introduced to the massive cost of keeping them repaired,

LetsGoBrandon said:

Outside of urban areas, they are higly impractical and will never catch on.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say never, but they'll catch on more slowly than their proponents hope.

LetsGoBrandon said:

The increase here in the US started losing steam as soon as the buyers were introduced to the massive cost of keeping them repaired,

Click to expand...

The bigger issue is the lack of reliable charging infrastructure and glitchy behavior under certain conditions (like cold weather). The charging infrastructure hasn't caught up with the surge in demand; consequently, the demand fell back into line with the under-developed infrastructure.

Personally, I'd get a hybrid before an e-car, but even those are still mostly out of my price range.

multivita-man said:

I wouldn't necessarily say never, but they'll catch on more slowly than their proponents hope.

Click to expand...

They will never be practical in many regions of the country. That includes cold areas, rural areas and areas prone to floods and hurricanes.

multivita-man said:

Personally, I'd get a hybrid before an e-car, but even those are still mostly out of my price range.

Click to expand...

That is another reason EVs are not practical. The expense of buying them and keeping them in repair is more then the lower middle class and poor can afford. It will be a case of the haves and the have nots if they are ever mandated everywhere. They will be a status symbol for the well to do.

Glitch said:

If Walmart is actually using hydrogen vehicles, then they are being massively subsidized for the fuel, because they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise.

Click to expand...

"Walmart first started using hydrogen-powered vehicles and forklifts in the US in 2012, growing its fleet from an initial 50 to 9,500 today as part of a long-standing agreement with Plug Power."